Journalism 2025: Mainstream media must change their ways

How journalism's nerds became masters of the universe
How journalism's nerds became masters of the universe
Peter Wilby The Guardian UK
Monday December 17 2007

Once upon a time, business journalists almost never made it to the editor's chair. Why has that all changed?

Nothing better illustrates how the country and its press have changed in the past 25 years than the rise and rise of the business journalist. This month, James Harding, the Times business editor and formerly a Financial Times stalwart, became editor of the paper. In treading the path from business to the editor's chair, he follows Robert Thomson, his predecessor at the Times; Will Lewis, the Daily Telegraph editor; and Patience Wheatcroft, who was briefly and unhappily in charge at the Sunday Telegraph. Examples from further back include David Yelland (the Sun), Will Hutton (the Observer), and Andreas Whittam Smith, founder and first editor of the Independent.

The business pages used to be regarded as backwaters. Newspaper editors kept a wary eye on them, because they had a habit of generating libel writs, but otherwise didn't bother to read them. Business journalists were seen as nerdish, anonymous characters in suits. Their copy was about as interesting to most of their colleagues as the Wincanton racing card. As for them becoming editors, most would have said the gardening or ballet correspondents had a better chance.

It is impossible to generalise about editors because - to the bafflement of outsiders - journalism has no coherent career structure. It was possible for, say, Max Hastings, a star reporter with no previous editing experience (except on a diary), to be catapulted into the editor's chair on the Daily Telegraph. Or for Andrew Neil, after a decade on the Economist but no previous experience of newspapers and only a little of editing, to take charge of the Sunday Times.

It was often said that tabloid editors came from subediting, making their mark on the backbench at nights when papers are put together, and broadsheet (as they were then) editors from writing backgrounds, often in political punditry. David Montgomery and Kelvin MacKenzie were examples of the former; Simon Jenkins and Charles Moore of the latter. But there were numerous exceptions - even the odd City journalist made it to the top, as did William Rees-Mogg, who edited the Times for 14 years from 1967. But business reporters were then somewhat less likely to rise through the ranks than education correspondents (of whom I was one). Rees-Mogg had first converted to general punditry. Business journalism was not generally seen as providing a sufficiently wide background by itself.

That is no longer so. Business journalists have become stars. Red-tops have business editors, and even the Guardian places the financial pages so that you read them before you get to the Marxists (joking, joking) on the leader pages. The Telegraph's Jeff Randall, an aggressive cheerleader for business journalism, has observed that "the City editor of the Sunday Times sits next to the editor at big swanky dos whenever the proprietor is in town".

The change came about sometime in the 80s. I suggest two reasons. First, the country in general and the press in particular became more obsessed with money. Financial services are now so important to the economy that, to understand how Britain works, it is necessary to understand what hedge funds, derivatives, libor rates and sub-prime mortgages actually are.

Bankers and business people carry weight in the highest circles of even a Labour government, as trade-union leaders did 30 years ago. Because such people sit on government committees and chair inquiries, a business journalist will have contacts as well-placed as those of the political staff. Moreover, most Britons are now, as Margaret Thatcher intended, not just consumers (rather than citizens, workers or professionals) but also investors. Even if they do not directly own shares, most newspaper readers have an interest in pension schemes that depend on stock-market movements, in house prices and, as borrowers or savers, in interest rates.

Second, newspapers are themselves money-making businesses, in a sense they were not 30 years ago. The great press lords owned newspapers for influence and glory; profits, share prices and return on capital were usually secondary considerations. The conglomerates who now run newspapers see them as just another business proposition. They like editors who understand marketing, cash flow and shareholder value. They see an editor as another cog in a management machine. Many editors, such as Thomson, now leave the chair for management positions. Some, such as Montgomery, move on to become media entrepreneurs. Others leave newspapers entirely for a career in the business world, as Wheatcroft did last week and as Sarah (now Baroness) Hogg, a former Times and Independent City editor, did long before her.

Perhaps it is because they have their minds on other things that most editors with a business background have not proved - with the outstanding exception of Whittam Smith - particularly inspirational journalistic leaders. But Harding and, given time, Lewis may yet manage to break that mould.